[Cite as State v. Espinoza-Soriano, 2020-Ohio-139.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. E-18-067 Appellee Trial Court No. CRB 1800489 v. Jamie Espinoza-Soriano DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: January 17, 2020 ***** Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, and Anthony A. Battista III, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Emil G. Gravelle III, for appellant. ***** OSOWIK, J. Facts and Procedural History {¶ 1} On August 31, 2018, Trooper Brian Dale of the Ohio State Highway Patrol was conducting “air speed detail” while flying over the Ohio Turnpike in Erie County. Trooper Dale identified a silver GMC passenger car that was driving over the posted speed limit. He notified Trooper Joshua Smith, who was patrolling the turnpike in his patrol car. Trooper Smith initiated the traffic stop of the vehicle, which was being driven by the defendant-appellant, Jamie Espinoza-Soriano (hereinafter “the defendant”). An unidentified female was in the passenger seat. {¶ 2} Trooper Smith approached the passenger side window and “immediately * * * noticed the odor of burnt marijuana coming from the vehicle.” A second trooper arrived, and each trooper questioned an occupant in his respective patrol car. Trooper Smith questioned the defendant. After being Mirandized and questioned, the defendant, appellant Jamie Espinoza-Soriano, “admitted to there being a marijuana joint located in the center console of the vehicle.” Trooper Smith searched the vehicle and located the marijuana joint. No other drugs were found. Trooper Smith testified that the defendant did not appear to be impaired and that he “didn’t believe [the defendant had] smoked marijuana.” The defendant was charged with knowingly possessing marijuana in a quantity less than 100 grams, in violation of R.C. 2925.11(C)(3)(a), a minor misdemeanor. The citation included a summons that directed the defendant to appear in the Erie County Municipal Court on September 17, 2018. {¶ 3} The defendant retained counsel who entered a “not guilty” plea on his behalf and requested that the case be set for a pretrial. The court set a pretrial date of September 26, 2018. Prior to that date, the defendant requested that he be excused from personally attending the hearing, based upon the fact that he lived in Michigan, making his attendance burdensome. The trial court granted the request. The defendant also propounded discovery requests on the state. 2. {¶ 4} No record was created of the September 26, 2018 pretrial hearing, but afterwards, the court set a status hearing for November 28, 2018, according to its “Notice of Assignment” and the clerk’s docket. {¶ 5} On October 10, 2018, the state filed a motion to amend complaint, in which it requested that the court “correct’ the complaint to reflect that the defendant had knowingly possessed “marijuana in a quantity less than 30 grams (One (1) marijuana cigarette),” rather than the “less than 100 grams,” as was originally charged. No reason for the amendment was given, and the particular statutory provision that the defendant was alleged to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals